|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudyard Kipling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.|
|Rudyard Kipling is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 22, 2004.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|Rudyard Kipling has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|�� This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 30, 2017.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
Hey, I recently colourised a picture of Kipling and I was wondering if it could made it up to the infobox. I believe it looks better than the one which leads the article and other wikis such as the Spanish one already have this version. --Macesito (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. Dunno, I quite like the current box image :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Iam one of those who believe in authenticity rather than improvement, besides as we should all know, the world was black and white back then. See explanation of black and white photos Dabbler (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- @dabbler The comic has brought me a tear :). And I share the same opinion than you. I colourise because I believe it brings a closer glimpse of history, but I understand it can never be accurate enough and I swear I would never colourise art, such as films. That shall remain untouched.--Macesito (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't think we should use this. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's nice work, but as long as the original is of such good quality, I don't think we ought to sidestep to retouched material... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
My Boy Jack
Does anyone have knowledge of whether the poem 'My Boy Jack' might refer to Boy Jack Cornwell VC ? Peter R Hastings 12:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P R Hastings (talk • contribs)
- Jack Cornwell died, and achieved fame, in June 1916, My Boy Jack was written in 1915, so no, it can't have been. I think the suggestion in our article, that "Jack" was chosen as a generic name, particularly suitable for a sailor, is on the money. DuncanHill (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I think our article is wrong on the date of the poem. The Kipling Society's Reader's Guide suggests late September, early October 1916 for the composition of the poem. "My Boy Jack" (notes edited by Brian Southam). DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- It goes on to say "Given the occasion of the poem, heading the reports on the Battle of Jutland with its great loss of life, ‘Jack’ is evidently the eponymous Jack Tar; and if one is seeking to attach the poem to any individual ‘Jack’, that would be young John Cornwell, the boy sailor (referred to in the press as ‘the Boy Jack’) whose bravery at the Battle of Jutland was recognised with the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross on 15 September 1916." So - there may be something in what you suggest, but I doubt we will ever have a definitive answer. DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't like this description of the author as being "English". He was born in India to an English father and Scottish mother. I'm not sure how that qualifies Kipling as English? And as the article later says under "childhood" he himself considered himself "Anglo-Indian".
What gives you the right to challenge this man's assertion of nationality? I would suggest that "British Indian" might be more appropriate. Or at least "British." It certainly seems to me that is is quite wrong to label him as "English". John2o2o2o (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Kipling was a British subject as was everyone born within what was then the British Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- We've been round that bush some 18 months ago, see Talk:Rudyard_Kipling/Archive_2#Migration_status. Consensus at the time was that the Victorian usage of "Anglo-Indian" should not see current application in biography articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- He was born in India, this means he was an Indian. Stop being a bigot. 2601:646:8D00:9C50:8CB9:F8D9:1631:C6E4 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Bigotry aside, I think you'll find that the law on British Nationality in 1865 did not allow for that possibility. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
(To: Elmidae, HiLo48, Chewings72 - possibly all the same person)
Please do not hijack Wikipedia for your own narrow-minded elitist agenda. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia deals only in facts and not in airy fairy abstract notions of identity. Most people accept that 'nationality' denotes the country of your birth, regardless of later adopted citizenship. Nationality is not the same as citizenship. As a general rule, if it can’t be proved, best not to write it.
As regards Kipling : Kipling was an English writer – false; Kipling was an Indian writer – true; Kipling was an English-language writer – true; Kipling was Indian - true; Kipling was British - false; Kipling was English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh - false; Kipling was a British citizen/subject – true; Kipling’s birth parents were British – false (not proven).
- Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's all very nice, but we prefer to stick to the preponderance of verifiable sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Nationality relates to culture and genetics: Link. What if Rudyard was born on a 747 to a beautiful stewardess and pilot in Bombay, the plane having to make an emergency landing for 10 minutes for the reason, before taking off again for destinations unknown? Lord Milner (talk)
- The first Boeing 747 wasn't rolled out until 30 September 1968. But 30 December 1865 predates the Kitty Hawk flighs by about 38 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Reputation in India
I really cannot remember how to do the insanely complex hieroglyphic keystrokes required for inline citations, so I can't directly correct the text, but it's unfortunate that the article is lying about Kipling in relation to Colonel (acting Brigadier) Dyer, the author of the Amritsar Massacre of 1919. Kipling was not a 'prominent supporter' of Dyer and did not call him 'the man who saved India', a phrase originated by the Morning Post newspaper. Nor did Kipling start the appeal for Dyer's retirement fund -- that was the Morning Post again. (And it wasn't a 'homecoming prize', as the article falsely claims; it was a retirement fund, because the army refused Dyer any further appointments, in other words sacked him. Dyer, broken by the knowledge of what he had done, did not live long to enjoy his retirement.) The Indian author Subhash Chopra, cited by the article, is however wrong to say that Kipling did not donate to the fund. He reportedly gave £10, out of a total of more than £26,000 raised. All Kipling said of Dyer was, 'He did his duty, as he saw it,' which, as I've mentioned before, is guarded and double-edged. Once again, see:- https://www.academia.edu/4297399/British_Reaction_to_the_Amritsar_Massacre_1919-1920
False claims made against Kipling by modern Indian nationalists need to be considered in light of the fact that the current Hindu nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, himself reportedly instigated the Gujarat riots of 2002, which killed at least as many people as the Amritsar Massacre. And Modi clearly does not suffer from the remorse that destroyed Dyer. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)